Lawton (1973, in Ejieh, 2004) explained that the ability to communicate through language is unique to

human, and such is a mean to attain learning and creative thinking. In education, the language choice for
instruction generally plays a vital role, as the chosen language can either serve as a key to understanding
or a barrier of learning (Orwenjo, 2012), Similarly, Gorgoria and Planas (2001) claimed that language as
medium of learning mathematics is an essential area of investigation.

UNESCO (2013) provides an array of delineation for the term mother tongue as "(1) the language/s that
one has learnt first, (2) the language/s identifies with or is identified as a native speaker by others; (3)
the language/s one knows best, and (4) the language/s one uses most" (p.15).

Further, mother tongue-based education generally means realizing instruction through the use of the
learners' first language (L1) or primary language in the early years of education (UNESCO, 2011); hence,
also known as the 'first language first approach" (Orwenjo, 2012). This means that the language of
instruction is the one that children have first learned or the language of the home. Discussions, lectures,
instructions, and recitations inside the classrooms are therefore done in children's L1 which enables the
interaction between learners and their teacher and even among themselves to happen more naturally
(Benson, 2004) and freely (MacKenzie, 2009) resulting to a strong classroom participation (Dutcher,
1995 in Burton, 2013).

Instruction of the reading and writing literacy including content is done in a language to which the
learner is proficient. Learning of other languages, the second language (L2) and the third language (L3),
will be done systematically after the grounding of competence in the L1 of young learners. This practice
would allow the transfer of both literacy and knowledge from Ll to another language/s (L1, L2). After the
mastery of the first language another language is added to be learned, making this to be known as
'additive approach (Orwenjo, 2012).

The non use of home language fosters difficulty to learners. Educational systems that do not account the
use of children's home language in their early education expect young schooling children to learn a new
language alongside learning content which proves to be too difficult if not improbable to fulfill (Jhingran,
2005 in MacKenzie, 2009). This becomes particularly true in study of mathematics taught in English to
English language learners (ELL) as it was confirmed that there exist a so-called language-associated
difficulties (Lee & Jung, 2004). Moreover, it is further claimed that non-mother tongue-based schooling
imposes constraints to learners' acquisition of knowledge and learning of skills. This is because
understanding the language of instruction becomes a task in itself in cases where the learners are yet to
master the medium of instruction. This is essentially true with respect to the subject science as learning
the said subject is noted to be a two-way process The first is to understand the math concepts being
taught, and the second is to be able to communicate such understanding (Gerber, Engelbrecht, Harding, &
Rogan, 2005). To the both processes pointed, language plays both central and vital roles. Therefore, the
language of instruction proves to be very important for learners to be able to relate to happenings during
class hours, and there would be no other best way for children to learn other than being taught in their
mother tongue (UNESCO, 2011).
1.2.2 Benefits of Mother Tongue as Mol The school use of L1 is claimed to be beneficial to cognitive
development. Illustrative of this is the research of Trudell and Shroeder (2007) as regards
African students in their study. One notable explanation to the academic success of students in
the study gained when instructed in their L1 is alluded to the idea that when classrooms do not
cut off children from their home language, instead nurture it, their language as well as culture
finds a place inside the classroom which become resources they can capitalize on and take
advantage for learning (Orwenjo, 2012). In teaching science problem, a similar perspective is
expressed by Robertson (2009) when he claimed that integration of real-life example, the kind
that is immediate to the child, makes science problems comprehensible. One good example is the
finding of Cook (2001 in Tabari & Sadighi, 2004) who informed that the use of L1 have been
claimed by teachers to help students become conscious of the differences and similarities
between their own language structure and that of another language which paves way for accurate
translation. Moreover, the practice that allows the language of children along with their culture to
occupy essential space in the basic curriculum enables children to learn context, ideas and
concepts known to them and later would be bridge to a wider world. It must be noted that
educational processes that account children's immediate environment and experience is supreme
in so far as learning of children is concerned (Mackenzie, 2009), and because of this cognitive
development happens more efficiently in children taught in their own language (Kembo, 2000).
Furthermore, instructions in the MT have been found to facilitate the affective development
among children. The development of the affective domain among children is realized effectively
because it was found that LI education affirms children's self worth and identity which are
bedrocks of learning (MacKenzie, 2009). Cummins (2000) maintained that the use of L1 inside
the classrooms allows not only the language of the home to find place in school but also the
culture accompanying it which is a form of empowerment, and is a powerful instrument to be
used in determining societal roots which forms part of one's identity (Indele, 2002 in Ngunga,
2011) boosting esteem and self pride as result of the feeling that one's culture and background
matter. Consequently, multilingual education "supports maintenance of cultural identity"
(Burton, 2013, p.43).

Apart from the potency of L1 instruction on children's cognitive and affective development and
academic achievement, the delivery of early education in MT is found to succor language acquisition and
learning. Skutnabb-Tangas and Toukomaa (1976 cited in UNESCO, 2011) postulate that the treshold of
competence in children's LI must be first attained before successful L2 learning can materialize which is
the main assumption of their "threshold level hyphothesis." Constructing on this, Cummins (1984)
developed his "interdependence kyphothesis" avowing the dependence of L2 competence on the
proficiency level of the L1. This means that foregrounding children in MT facilitates the learning and use
of other languages. This being the case, proficiency in the LI is a predictor of the proficiency in L2
(Cummins, 2000). Mackenzie (2009) and Orwenjo (2012) echo the same contention and explains that as
learners have solid foundation in their first language learning of other languages becomes easy.
Conversely, failure to develop children's proficiency in the LI compromises linguistic proficiency in the
additional languages children are learning (Igboanusi, 2008).
1.2.3 Mother Tongue and Mathematics Anstrom (1997) contends that "...the importance of language in
science instruction is often overlooked in the mistaken belief that Scienceis somehow independent of
language proficiency... (p.25). Therefore, by way of implication, the linguistic demand of the LoI in
teaching science is discounted by many educators. This practice is worth lamenting considering that
students fail not because of weak mathematical ability or inability to perform operations or solve
problems, but because the Lol served as a barrier proving to be too difficult to hurdle for many leaners.

Secada (1992) argues that central to the process of mathematical reasoning and activities such as
explaining, making claims and providing proofs is language. This implies not only that language is
important to fulfill different activities realized inside a mathematics class, but also the necessity for
students to possess proficiency in the Lol for them to get passing or better grades in mathematics. It is
therefore not a surprise that learners with limited Lol proficiency have difficulties learning mathematics
and are eventually poor performers. Rollnick (2000) explains a similar contention for learning another
content subject like mathematics, science. He notes that "It is acknowledged that expecting students to
learn a new and difficult subject through the medium of a second language is unreasonable, giving them
a double task of mastering both science content and language (p. 100)".

In the context of first language or MT being important in Mathematics, the study of Dawe (1983), which
enlisted as participants 11-13 years old children who are bilingual Punjabi, Mirpuri, Italian and Jamaican,
found that competence in Ll is an essential factor in developing children's ability to reason in
mathematics when the same is taught in English. This finding provides a considerable support that the
use and benefit in other language can only be fully achieved if the first language is founded well. In a
similar vein, Skutnabh-Tangas and Toukomaa (1976 cited in UNESCO, 2011) postulated that the treshold

of competence in children's LI must be first attained before successful L2 learning can materialize. This
means that foregrounding children in MT facilitates the learning and use of other languages.

Moreover, Mackenzie (2009) and Orwenjo (2012) echo the same contention and explained that as
learners have solid foundation in their L1, learning of other languages becomes easy. Conversely, failure
to develop children's proficiency in the Ll compromises linguistic proficiency in the additional languages
children are learning (Igboanusi, 2008). However, the hard truth remains that children across the world
often master science through a L2 or L3 (Gerber et.al., 2005) which is regarded as a common situation
especially to developing countries (Clarkson, 1992).

There are studies that examined languages other than English that might affect mathematics learning in
that particular language. In the study of Han and Ginsburg (2001), the result proves that using Chinese
terminology makes concepts of mathematics "clearer' as compared to discussing the same concepts
with English. This study lends proof that counters reported beliefs that indigenous languages are
linguistically limited, and could not deliver the teaching of modern concepts which the English language
can (Orwenjo, 2012).
Language-in-education policy becomes a recent tendentious concern in the context of the Philippines as
it has recentlyThe use of the child’s first language in school has been encouraged by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization since the year 1953 (UNESCO, 1953); however, the
norm that favors monolingualism in education remained for the Philippines until in 2013 when the
Enhance Basic Education Act was signed into a law by the then President Benigno Aquino III. The law is
more commonly known as the K-12 program. Initially, 12 local major languages were used in MTBMLE,
and these are Bikol, Cebuano, Chabacano, Hiligaynon, Iloko, Kapampangan, Maguindanao, Marananao,
Pangasinense, Waray, Tagalog and Tausug. However, in 2013, 7 new languages were added and these
are the Ybanag, Ivatan, Sambal, Aklanon, Kinaray-a, Yakan and Surigaonon (DepEd, 2013). In total, there
are 20 languages used in the two models of the MTB-MLE – as a learning area or subject and as a
medium of instruction (MoI). From grades 1 to 3, learners are to take mother tongue as a subject in
which the emphasis is on reading and speaking. The mother tongue as medium of instruction shall be
used in all learning areas with exceptions of the Filipino and English subjects which are introduced in the
third grade (DepEd, 2013). Multilingualism is seen as source of problems, but per se is not because it has
always been advantageous for a person to speak and/or write in more than one language (Ngunga,
2011). However, inside the classrooms , the question “What language should be used as a medium of
instruction?” remains as a legitimate concern. The choice of a language to become the medium for the
teaching and learning process is not a simple concern to address. The diverse linguistic characteristics of
the Philippines makes the implementation of the mother tongue based education in the country to 2018
TESOL International Journal Vol. 13 Issue 3  ISSN 2094-3938 TESOL International Journal 136 be
described as far from smooth and easy. The obvious difficulty is the selection in terms of which language
should be used and taught in the classroom where the learners are coming from varied linguistic and
cultural backgrounds. The Department of Education (DepEd) then provided two models of the MTB-MLE
(Metila, Pradilla, & Williams, 2016). The models are the Multiple Monolingual Model and the Lingua
Franca Model. In the former, students then are clustered according to their spoken mother tongue. In
this model, the mother tongue as a subject and the mother tongue used as medium of instruction is the
L1 or first language of the learners; however, in the second model which is the Lingua Franca Model, the
learners are taught in a nominated language based on a wide use which means of having learners, in the
early years, learn and speak a language which is not their own (Metila et. al., 2016). There are then
instances when a teacher or a pre-service teacher will use a medium of instruction that which the child
will yet to learn in the Lingua Franca model. In addition, MT as a subject will be an L2 and not L1 to some
who do not speak the nominated dominant local language. Therefore, the perceived benefits of teaching
students in their first language like the fostering of understanding about the topics presented and the
discussions taking place inside the classroom (Ejieh, 2004), development of proficiency in the L2 which is
in most cases the English language (MacKenzie, 2009; Cummins, 2000), non-discriminating environment
(Mohanty, 2006), and acknowledgement of the learner’s linguistic right (Kosonen, 2005) are not
expected to be present in the model in question. Therefore, it would seem that the only difference that
has taken place in the account of this model, for those whose L1 is not the nominated MT, is that English
is simply replaced with another language not familiar to the child in the early years – this time a local
language.